Ads aren't the problem, the surveillance is. That you can't have the former without the latter is a myth FB and Google peddle to justify their existence. They don't even need your data all that much - the duopoly the myth perpetuates is what matters. There's no conclusive proof that personalized ads are more efficient than old banner networks, much less that FB's or Google's services are worth the huge share of profits they take as intermediaries.

Who said this ruling forbids ads? It only forbids user tracking (actually not even that - it just requires meaningful consent to be obtained before tracking users).

It amazes me how people--even technical people--have been tricked into believing that ads require pervasive tracking.

Ads have been around for as long as there has been trade. So, thousands of years. Pervasive tracking has been around for less than thirty years. But yeah, "how in the world will we ever be able to show ads to people and pay for software?"